Thoughts on The Apostle Paul

by El Kabong 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  A Paduan

  The writing of Paul is inspired - but it has been the fundamentalist position, as usual, to consider that the writing of Paul is for literal understanding - if much of what is literal makes some sense to you, then so be it, some food for thought, but that's not why it is an "inspired text" for the spirit.

  What Paul did and wrote can be considered in the same light as other characters of the bible who had exerted authority - you can examine it, see a man, and what a man did and said.

  But the inspired nature of the text is for our spiritual discernment: for example

  • a wife is bound by her husband - the soul may accept and submit to a "word", not necessarily Christ - and as you would have read, Christ, the Word, is the bridegroom - and concerned for "widows" - but if her husband dies - the woman at the well had no accepted 'word' at the time - " you're right to say that you have no husband ". A word like the wt is always coming up with new light - anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife - it should be of great comfort to ex-jws that a wife is not bound by her husband when he dies

  • a man to wear long hair is degrading - I'll leave yall to figure that one

  The writing of Paul - a silver cup in the mouth of the sack of the younger.
• 

  seedy3

  Here are a few articles you may find interesting on the Apostle Paul:

  http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

  http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/rpaul.htm

  http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pmithra/index.htm

  Seedy
• 

  anti-absolutism

  Great points everybody...... never really thought about how messed up Paul's advice was to that depth before.

  I usually just kept it fairly simple, in regards to my opinion of him:

  1) the damned bugger was a part of the group that killed that really nice guy Stephen... I would have never trusted him completely after that... but even if I did...

  2) the bloke had bad eyes ..... did he even know what he was writing?

  So basically he was a mean mother ...... that either didn't know what he was writing or if his eyes were REALLY bad, then can you imagine how the guy or guys who wrote some of that stuff and what they wrote or changed.... how funny they thought it would be to have so many people trying to make sense of it 2000 years later!!!!!!!

  By the way, I get some of my humour from Calvin of "Calvin and Hobbs"..... no offense but sometimes it is necessary to make "life a little more surreal"

  Brad
• 

  Sargon
• 

  Sargon

  Oh yeh, don't touch that damn enter key.

  Brad,

  I didn't know about the bad eye-sight thing (or if i did I'd forgetten), just wondering if maybe he had hairy palms too!! This would explain his attitude towards women.
• 

  heathen

  I think paul admitted he was a fanatic when he stated how zealous he was when he was studying to be a pharisee but then miraculously found a new calling in christ .Paul was a very enigmatic writer ,he seemed to be the only one that was insistant that the mosaic law was obsolete .The apostle Peter even refered to the fact that Paul was an apostle who was difficult to understand but still had the kind of authority to lead. In fact Peter and Paul disagreed on the purpose of baptism so the bible does contradict itself despite what the WT says . We can even attribute the sects that arose due to the contreversy over what Paul was saying .Paul also said that sects were necessary in order for the inspired expressions to be tested to the fullest and the son of righteousness to be exonerated.
• 

  kat_newmas

  well, you can make the bible say anything if you read just right. Context. There is a whole lot of wisdom in the bible.... but whether or not, you make it a church doctrine is another thing.

  "you should not eat blood".... good advice in those days when undercooked food illnesses were probably rampant... no microwave.... but do you go around letting your child die, if it needs a transfusion? We think not.

  The bible does talk about not breaking bread with un-repentant "sinners"or drunkards. This is the scripture that is used to justify Disfellowshipping.... but does the bible really tell us that if someone screws up, and violates a church doctrine that we should totally ignore them? Consider them Dead? I think it says something in there about loving all creations of god, and "I am all things" ... ALL things. How are you going to narrow that down to a specific Idea of what GOD is? Or what petti rituals man should or should not perform in his name. Man has gone further than creating god in his own image.... he puts the words in God's mouth too. Remember what the cover of the thing says in BIG Golden letters......KING JAMES VERSION . A political leader had every say so, about what was written in it. What was allowed to be written. It doesnt say "God's Version". If you ladies will take a moment to remember that this is why it is "your duty before god to obey and .... satisfy, your husbands". All those long nights staring at the ceiling waiting for that fool to do his business... well ya, got good ol King James to thank for that one. If you take a look at nature it is the same thing... the male lion grabs the female by the throat.... and MAKES her do it. This is just man's way.

  Since the beginning of man, he has killed, tortured and raped, in the name of GOD. Every war, every dispute, every law is based on someone's Idea of what God wants, or what God thinks is right for man. OR what one man can convince another man to believe that god wants.

  So regaurding Paul.... remember that as the owner of a Penis.... it was kinda in his nature to go around telling everybody else how to do it. .... and then every male between then and now has had a chance to add something to it.... so take it at face value... you aren't damned if you can't follow around a bunch of elders.
• 

  heathen

  kat_newmas-- I think women also were responsible for some of the inhuman treatment of people throughout history . I don't forget that the queens of europe were just as blood thirsty and controlling as the kings were. Here in america you do have the right to practice religion anyway you see fit so saying that you don't like the WT arrangement is redundant . Personally I don't have a problem with the women learn in silence part of the bible , I think the WT demands too much of women myself . Paul said that women would be saved through faith ,child bearing and sanctification provided they have soundness of mind .
• 

  William Penwell

  One of the Gnostic books that was supposedly written by Mary Magdalene, tells how she had a significant role in the early church movement. The writings were destroyed as been heretical because they disagreed with Paul's writing on the role that women were to play in the Christian Church.

  Will
• 

  Ed

  I didn't know about the bad eye-sight thing (or if i did I'd forgetten), just wondering if maybe he had hairy palms too!! This would explain his attitude towards women.

  In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul speaks of a "thorn in the flesh" that was tormenting him, that he had pleaded with God to be removed from him. But he didn't say exactly what the problem was. The WTS has suggested that maybe his problem was bad eyesight. There's also another theory that this thing tormenting him was homosexual tendencies. That's not to say he ever acted on those urges though, but it would seem to make sense of a few other things he wrote.